Public Accounts Committee on Feb. 13th, 2023

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you for that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have time, too.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Vaccination is one of the world's greatest public health achievements. For over 50 years, vaccines have helped prevent and control the spread of deadly diseases and saved the lives of millions of infants, children and adults.

For example, there are vaccines for epidemics such as Ebola, childhood diseases, debilitating diseases such as polio, diseases such as yellow fever that are common in some travel destinations, influenza strains that change every year, and preventing or treating cancer. Many vaccines are recommended as part of Canadian public health programs to prevent people from getting diseases. This means they are given to large numbers of people.

People in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt and many people across Canada are so grateful to have vaccines, especially during this COVID period. I would rather protect Canadians. This is about protecting Canadians, not the government.

I mentioned that we are still procuring vaccines. Why would we want to jeopardize this?

Vaccine companies may be reluctant to come, to continue to do business or even to conduct research. I want to ensure that Canadians are able to have continued access, not just to COVID vaccines but to other vaccines like the flu, HPV, shingles, travel vaccines and much more.

It is important that we continue to have the ability to purchase vaccines, that companies feel confident there will not be a breach of commitments, and that choice be there for us to be able to select from a variety of companies to purchase vaccines. I worry that this limits our future ability to have ready access to a variety of vaccines.

I believe that Mr. Housefather's amendment is reasonable and that it should be considered.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Thank you.

Mr. Fragiskatos, you have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair, and thank you to my colleague.

It's important to keep in mind that we are part of the Westminster parliamentary tradition. In that tradition, the rules and procedures of what we do here...all of that is held together by precedent. I note that, Mr. Chair, and I'm sure we're all aware of it, because in that big green book that we are given when we're all elected—I'm sure we've read that book—you'll find precedent throughout, cited time and again. In x year, this happened. In y year, that happened, and so on and so forth. That's how we keep our tradition going, as I said. That's what holds things together; not completely, but it is the key.

I say this, especially, because I was surprised to hear tonight—and the comment's been made a few times by colleagues in the opposition—that somehow an NDA constitutes something that is completely outside of the norm. For example, our having to consider an NDA...certainly, arguments have been made that our signing an NDA would be tantamount to its being forced upon us. “Intrusive” was also used.

These kinds of things, I think, have to be understood as situated within this point about precedent that I just made, because it's not as if they would be presented out of nowhere. I say this with reference to a February 2017 report from the committee of justice. It is highly relevant for our purposes here tonight, Chair.

In the report, on page 6, it says:

The Minister of Justice discussed the shortlist of candidates

—being the short list of candidates, Mr. Chair, immediately prior to the appointment of the Supreme Court justice at the time—

with only three members of our committee—Mr. Housefather, Mr. Nicholson, and Mr. Rankin—in their roles as Committee Chair and Opposition Justice Critics respectively.

Now, for those of us who remember, Mr. Rob Nicholson was then the minister of justice in Canada.

Chair, I'm not sure if you served with him. You may have. You did.

He's certainly someone I disagreed with on a range of policy issues, but I don't think his intent as a parliamentarian was ever questioned, nor was his passion for policy ever questioned.

Mr. Rankin is also mentioned. We know him as a former colleague. Murray Rankin is now serving in the province of British Columbia. He's a very good man and someone I was quite happy to work with.

I mention them because the report continues:

These members signed a non-disclosure agreement prior to being consulted.

Prior to being consulted by the then minister of justice, they had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. That is a critical point for our consideration, because if the argument has been made here tonight, as it has been, that the signing of a non-disclosure agreement somehow would breach our parliamentary privilege, that in and of itself, to my way of thinking, is proof that our parliamentary privilege would not, in fact, be breached.

Are we to think that a minister of justice would go ahead and sign a non-disclosure agreement on the understanding that doing so would be a breach of their parliamentary privilege? I don't think so.

Mr. Rankin was not a federal minister. He's a provincial minister now and served with...he was a very distinguished MP. He was really quite liked across the aisle. Would he have done that? Would he have signed a non-disclosure agreement if he had thought that it was a breach of his parliamentary privilege? Certainly not.

All of this, I think, brings to bear the key point that is now on the record. The inclusion of the point on the non-disclosure agreement in this amendment is not a breach of parliamentary privilege. It's simply not. It's not an unprecedented step. A colleague earlier made the argument that this is somehow outside the norm. “Forced upon” was the term used, and—I've already said it, but it's worth saying again—that this would interfere with and intrude on our role as MPs.

It's been done before. It's been done by long-standing members of the House of Commons, elected members of the House of Commons, people who know the rules of parliamentary procedure very, very well, and a minister of justice no less, Mr. Rankin. If we remember him—and I'm not sure members had the opportunity to work with him very closely—those who do remember him know him as someone who understood the rules of this place very, very well, certainly in terms of what constitutes parliamentary privilege and what would be a breach of it. He was very well versed in all those things.

They signed non-disclosure agreements back in 2017. As a result, they consulted with the then minister of justice on the short list for the Supreme Court appointment. Is it that unreasonable that this committee would have its members do the same? There is precedent for this. This has happened before. If we believe very seriously, as we should, in the notion that our tradition, our Westminster parliamentary tradition, is important, then I think we should take that incredibly seriously, Mr. Chair. Otherwise, what are we left with? This, I suppose, goes back to an argument that was made before about what we do in this place. If we're not paying attention to the rules, if we're not paying attention to things like precedent, upon which the rules are based, then we're not doing our jobs as members of Parliament.

I think this is absolutely crucial. It was important for me to make clear that the members being referenced are members from other parties: Mr. Nicholson was a Conservative and Mr. Rankin was an NDP member. I point to their record of service, not just to illustrate the point, but to try to be, in the spirit of this committee, non-partisan. It shows that we need to understand and recognize that colleagues from different parties have made a contribution and have lived up to their responsibilities. I could have pointed to Liberals who have signed NDAs, and it would certainly not have been a breach of parliamentary privilege, but I'm trying to expand the tent, as it were.

I don't see anything wrong here with our going ahead and doing this, recognizing the need, again, to be reasonable. If members still have a challenge somehow, even though there is now precedent on the record that signing an NDA does not breach parliamentary privilege, then what we can do is go back to what Mr. Housefather talked about before.

In a few days' time, when we reconvene here in Ottawa, we can have public servants from PSPC come and tell us their perspective on this particular issue and where NDAs fit in. Again, I see nothing wrong with this. I think this is completely fair. It would allow members to question those public servants as much as they wish and to put very pointed questions to the members of the public service. Let's have a conversation about that. Failing that, I don't think we've considered the issue from all sides, from all perspectives. I think that would be a disservice to us, Mr. Chair.

By the way, I should have made it absolutely clear that I was citing not just a page on the Internet or from some news report, Mr. Chair. I was citing directly from a report of this Parliament—not this Parliament, but you understand what I'm saying—that has been issued by the House of Commons, specifically the Standing Committee on Justice. This is something I think we have to take seriously.

Again, I haven't heard members ask here tonight whether or not the signing of a non-disclosure agreement would somehow constitute a breach of parliamentary privilege. I think I've illustrated the point now by pointing to particular precedents that take us back to 2017. I think the question has been answered; however, we can take time to consider it further, if not in our own deliberations in the coming days, then perhaps by putting the question to the clerk and asking the clerk what they think about this particular issue.

We can also go through the green book I talked about before, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, whichever edition it might be. It would be a good idea to consult the most recent one. Perhaps this discussion will make an appearance in a future edition, who knows? I think that when we decide on something as important as this, we take into account all the perspectives, all the various issues at play, otherwise, we're really not doing our job, are we?

The issue of precedent itself.... And, Mr. Chair, you might ask is it just something relating to the Westminister parliamentary tradition? No, I think if you look at the Congressional Record, and specifically the rules and procedures that would apply to the American Congress, there too you have....

I know, Mr. Chair, you're a follower of American politics and you're a student of American history, both in your time as a member of Parliament but in your time as a journalist as well. You will see for yourself, and I invite all other members to look in those rules and procedures, that in the American presidential tradition and that tradition of presidential democracy, precedent plays a very important role in establishing rules, and what would in that case constitute a breach if one is a member of the House of Representatives or a senator. The rules that help to establish that are found in precedent. We now have clear-cut examples that illustrate that there is precedent, certainly, and that's all that matters, that the precedent exists for us to follow here.

This argument that's been raised here tonight—passionately, I'll admit—by members across the way is one that I've considered, and there it was in front of me in a report available to us online. It is public, but I'm glad to, if members wish to have access to that report, email it to fellow members so they can see for themselves right there in black and white text that this is something that has happened. Some might make the case that it's just one precedent. One is all you need, Mr. Chair, one case, and we've had that established already at the justice committee.

The argument could also be posed that this is not a precedent that comes from the public accounts committee, and instead comes from the justice committee. Regardless, I think we can't mistake the fact that each committee is considered on its own merit. In other words, one committee is not more important than another. With that in mind, we have to really take seriously the fact that the examples set from other committees should guide us in all our work and all our deliberations and in how we approach the issues that come to our attention. That's something that I think deserves real respect, otherwise, we're not living up to our role here.

Things that have happened in the past, whether it is the very recent past, 2017, again, the date that this precedent came into fruition, or 1917, count the same and they help guide us. I'm not blaming my friends in the opposition. It's not as if this is common knowledge. We have so many responsibilities as members of Parliament, I'm not expecting that everyone's memorized the rules and procedures—I certainly haven't—of this place.

I try to do my best and it makes for very interesting reading, interesting depending on your definition. Certainly, when you're trying to understand what happens at committees, how they work, and the ins and outs.... I remember as a member of Parliament early in my days when I was honoured enough to be elected in 2015, delving in and reading as much as I could, but I'm certainly no expert. We need to understand that that offers a guide to us.

Again, I make that offer to colleagues, if they wish to take a look at what I've just cited, because I think it does give us the chance to get past this argument.

There's nothing intrusive about what has been proposed. There's nothing that is being forced upon us here. I think we ought to move in that direction, Mr. Chair.

I haven't thanked them yet. I probably should have. The translators have been kind enough to us tonight. I think they have been with us for, I believe, four or five hours now, or whatever it has been.

I wonder if we can suspend, Mr. Chair, to give them a break. They have been going for quite a while, and we can pick this discussion up, but I do not yield the floor at this point. I just want your thoughts on that.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You have the floor.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I'm wondering if we are able to suspend and pick this up at a future meeting because of lack of resources.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No. You have the floor, Mr. Fragiskatos.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Okay. I will continue happily.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

One of your colleagues is next. You're not the last.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Right. I'm happy to continue.

The point was made, and I don't mean it as disrespect when I say that members have missed that we do have previous cases where non-disclosure agreements have been signed by MPs. That's something that is, I think, central to what we're trying to sort out here tonight.

I also made reference to it before, but maybe I can put it back to you, Chair, and to the clerk to sort that question out once and for all, because I'm no authority on this. Perhaps it can be looked at further by the clerk to understand whether or not I'm correct in my assessment, but, yes, I think that this point about precedent is something that can't be dismissed.

I have some other thoughts, Chair, but I don't want to take up time from others. You said that there are others who have a point they want to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Mr. Housefather, you have the floor.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I just wanted to again make the point that it's clear we're not going to reach agreement tonight. It's clear that we have homework to do on our side to go back and figure out with the department whether or not there's a way to do this without NDAs, without having risk, or having lots of risk and understanding that risk.

In my proposal, what I would suggest is that the committee gives us the time to go back to contact the suppliers to see whether or not the suppliers are amenable to another solution. If we haven't found a solution that's acceptable to the committee in between meetings, we could have a representative of the department in camera present to the committee why they are concerned from a legal standpoint. Then the committee can decide whether or not they accept that argument.

At that point, at the end of that presentation, I will very willingly either withdraw my amendment in the event that I feel that the explanation is not warranted, or we will have an immediate vote on it, because I think my colleagues and I will all agree that we will vote immediately on it as opposed to taking up everybody's time talking forever and not coming to any point.

Mr. Chair, that would be what I would propose to the committee. I don't want to yield the floor, because I'm afraid, if I do, that we will just keep going.

I don't know if we have any kind of agreement on that or not, but that's what I would propose.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Go ahead, Mr. Housefather.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

All right.

Then, Mr. Chair, since I'm looking around at the faces, that's what I propose we make happen.

I move to adjourn.

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Well, you can't move to adjourn.

There are no other names on the speaking list.

Clerk, call the question, please.

[Brenda Shanahan, Liberal, Châteauguay—Lacolle, QC]

I'm sorry, Chair; I had my hand up. I was on the list.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Chair, on point of order, why can't I move to adjourn?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

You can't move to adjourn the meeting. Oh, you can move, so we have to vote on that.

There's a motion to adjourn the meeting.

Clerk, call the vote.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Mr. Chair, we will take up this debate at the next meeting, correct?

We are not about to adjourn the debate, are we?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

No, it's to end the meeting.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Can you assure us that we will shortly pick up where we left off?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

Committee members will have the option of resuming debate on the motion or considering report 6 on the surveillance of Arctic waters.

That being sad, the motion will be our priority.

[Nathalie Sinclair-Desgagné, Bloc, Terrebonne, QC]

Could you be more specific, please?

[The Chair, Conservative, John Williamson]

We will still have to debate the amendment to your motion.